Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 12:13:58 03/07/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 07, 2001 at 13:37:46, Fernando Villegas wrote: >Hi Dann: >Of course your examples and statements are clear and known for everybody here >with some decent knowledge of scientific method. If only we could keep ourselves >always inside that kind of formal, protocolized kind of reasonning,m a lot of >missunderstandings in all kind of realms could be avoided, including this >little, unimportant area of chess computers, but in fact we cannot and even I am >not sure it would be preferable. Even inside the realms of sciences there an >incredible number of logila mistakes, false asumptions, debates aroused from >passion, etc... Fact is we must move in a day to day basis with scarce info, few >time to examine and nevertheless to make some judgements. These can be inside or >outside the cone of truth, yes, but then the debate appears and other people >with perhaps other not more accurate but different impressions gives his view >and in a way we reach, as a collective entity, some kind of agreement, >practical, perhaPS not accurate but enough for our purposes IN THE MOMENT. In >other words, not only science but even common knowledege is less a matter of an >individual than a matter of a collectivity looking for an answer for a >determinate moment and with just a transient validity. If this statment is >correct, then our appreciation of the judgment or impressions of everybody >should be less rigid, not as if everybody should deliver here a complete, full, >databased statement to be considered worth of a reading. I think the opposite is >more humane and practical: you just take all kind of impressions, with or >without data, with or without a full development, with or without maths and then >with all that as a feedback everybody can reformulate his own first vision and >offer a new one. Is what U have done with gandal evaluation;: I add my fist >impresison, the opposite judgments of Mogens, the statistics offerecd by other >people and so NOW I have another, richer impression, probably more inside the >cone of truth. >A pleasure to debate with you Well said, and as always, you are a worthy debater. I think it all boils down to this: 1. There is a time for science 2. There is a time for fun 3. There is a time for win at all costs Sometimes the three coincide. Sometimes they do not. None are necessarily right or wrong, but can be different means to a similar ends. I think trying to make other people run tournaments the way I think they ought to be run is pushing a rope. Unless they want to pick up the other end and pull, it is so pointless that it is commical. And any sort of tournament will generate data that has *some* use. Perhaps the only use is for our enjoyment. Perhaps we can calculate an accurate ELO. Is the ELO more valuable than the enjoyment? Depends on who you ask, I suppose. In any case, I think any approach is fine as long as you spell out what you are doing. In that way, I can ignore your data or assimilate it or just read through it for fun.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.